Hello, this is Ted. And this is Brandon. Welcome to Concerning AI. Yeah, welcome.
This is the show where we have two questions. One. Yeah, the first one's a scary one. Kind of.
Or is the second one a scary one? They're both a little scary. First one is, is artificial intelligence a potential existential threat to humanity or, in fact, DNA-based life? We say we think so.
Yeah, we do. And the second question is, if so, then what do we do about it? That's the scary one, right? Like it just calls us out to do things.
Yeah. The first one is intellectually interesting. The second one is disruptive. Yeah.
And what do we actually do? But the fun thing about what do we do is that, because the problem is so difficult to even define, we get to talk about a lot of different things and explore a lot of different areas to even think about what are the possibilities. Like reading fiction, for example. So that's what we do.
We read books. Yeah. It's novels. What do we read, Brandon?
Yeah. So we read, Ramesenam has this series, the Nexus series, that is really consonant with the Tim Urban way by Y-Peace about Neuralink with the wizard hat for your brain. So that's where we found it from. I was reading that.
Ramesenam features fairly significantly in the article because you spent a lot of time with Tim, and they talked a lot. And so that's probably why they're so. So for those that don't know, Elon Musk has a company called Neuralink. In addition to everybody knows about SpaceX and Tesla, Neuralink is this idea of building a brain computer interface.
And the augmentation is one of the strategies that we feel like has a some promise, that we can't just dismiss out of hand, that may delay the overlap between humans and artificial intelligence that could prevent or make less likely the existential threat. Yeah, maybe delay the crossover where the AIs are just so far ahead of what humanity has become. Cool. All right.
So now everybody's up to speed with what we're talking about. So where do you want to start talking about the Nexus series? Is there one point that you want to raise first, that really struck you after reading these books? You know, I thought you were going to go first.
Why don't you go first? OK. So I actually thought it would be interesting to think a little bit about step by step sequential. Early in the books, of course, the idea of the brain computer interface.
And we are going to spoil this for you, by the way. So if you haven't read it, you might want to stop the recording and go read these three books. You should totally go read them. It's their great.
Come back after you read them. OK. So the concept is they have this drug that you drink. It's like a silvery liquid.
And it basically puts these nanobots in your brain. And those configure themselves. And they get into your neurons. And the details of how that actually works probably don't matter.
But they then can communicate not only with each other, but they can communicate with the nanobots and other people's brains who are close to you. And then later in the series, they, of course, can connect to the internet. And they can connect to other minds anywhere in the world. So I'm getting ahead of the story already.
But early on, I found it fascinating that in the very first chapter, you could run software in your brain so that your behavior would be different. When I've thought about augmentation before, I've even made this statement from Kurzweil. You could tell funnier jokes because your brain is connected to the cloud. Your brain is connected to a lot more processing power.
And so therefore, you are funnier when you need to be funnier. It never occurred to me that you would be running software up there. And you could notice the software process. And turn on, for example, in the first chapter, he turns on the Don Juan program so that he can get the girl.
He's experimenting. He's kind of a nervous guy. He's a young 20s. And he's a geek.
And he's not very good with romance. And so he goes to a party. And he turns on the Don Juan. And she likes it.
He's saying these things that are cheesy. And he's thinking to himself, wow, these lines are so cheesy. But they end up getting together. So I thought that was really interesting.
The person, the thinker, could notice what's going on in their own brain and then could even write software with their brain that operates on their brain or on these nanobots. That was fascinating to me. It was at, now that you bring that particular scene of the book up, it was interesting how Cade, this is probably the main protagonist in the series, how Cade is both the watcher and the watched in that scene. Because he's watching himself with the Don Juan program running and having a little running commentary in his mind about how that's going at the same time that he is the Don Juan program, to some degree.
It seems like it opens up a lot of different philosophical questions. For sure. But let's stick with the point that you're going down right now, which is this idea of software running in your brain. But there's this operating system that is able to run on the cluster of Nexus in your brain.
Yeah. Yeah. And so maybe, I don't know if it's interesting to talk about any of the other kinds of software that they run, just so that people can get an idea of what we're talking about. So software, I can't remember the name they gave it, but it was to be calm, to not give away your fear, or when you're lying, to dampen your physiological responses, to keep your heart rate steady, to keep your sweat response down, to make sure your hormones stay in the normal range.
Instead of spiking into the range where you could be seen to be lying, your breathing rate. Yeah. I'm running for that. One of the downsides of that program is that if you suppress things, like when you're really running and you've got that program on or something, you can keep your body from revving up the way it needs to and pass out.
That's right. Because you're not getting all the all that you need to keep up with the level of activity you're actually at. Yeah. There's a reason you need all that adrenaline in your system when you're being chased, or that your lungs pound faster and your heart, your lungs go faster and your heart goes faster because that's how you get more oxygen to your body.
There's a reason for that. So yeah, you're burning that at your peril. You're burning glucose fast and stuff. Yeah.
So then there's also the Bruce Lee program. Yeah. Yeah. The Bruce Lee program was fascinating because it's as if you know how to do Bruce Lee type moves, but Gaid's body was not a Bruce Lee type body.
And so it almost never worked. Yeah. It's always like he was trying to use it when he's in dire situations where it's kind of like his last hope and he's completely outclassed and it just always failed miserably. And I think it may have saved the day once or twice.
Yeah. Well, as an aside, one of the reasons that he was always completely outclassed physically was because of all the other physical augmentations that people had in this universe. And this universe is only what, 20 years from now? 22 years from now?
About that. Yeah. And it was written a few years ago. So it was written probably written 25-ish years into the future from when it was written.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so I think it's a very good idea for the post-humans and on the side against limiting the occurrence of post-humans. That seems to be a really common dichotomy in these books, these post-human, trans-human books, is this side that is trying to, it's becoming the repressive police state to limit technological advances against the side that wants kind of a more unfettered libertarian future.
Yeah. So reflexively when you ask R2 questions of this podcast, if AI isn't existential threats to humanity, one of the things I think my brain goes to automatically is maybe we should limit this technology. that on the show, what if? What if we banned AI or the technological progress toward AI?
And then of course, wouldn't just criminals build that anyway or wouldn't other countries not abide by the treaty? That was a central theme in this book, is that there's a worldwide treaty that I can't remember the details of the treaty exactly, but you can't build this stuff. And yet, lots of people do. Yeah, it's funny.
When I think about this, I like to say that you can't keep the AI in a box. It would be impossible to put the lid on coming up with it. When somebody else says it, I just want to argue with them. Yeah.
But I really do definitely come down on the side of it. There's just no keep in this thing in the box. It's going to happen. And if we try to stop it, we will be unsuccessful.
There's two different boxes, I think. One is sort of the worldwide box of if we prevent ourselves from developing superhuman artificial intelligence. That's one box. The other box is what if we keep the super intelligence off the net and don't give them a body and somehow develop them in a black box so that they can't hurt us?
That's another huge theme of this book, the series is that there is a post human, superhuman artificial intelligence and they do isolate it from the net. So that's a really juicy one. Let's talk about that. But first, let's do a terminology clarification.
I think boxing is put in the AI and individual AI in the box. We need another term for stopping all work in that direction, to try to repress work on certain technologies. Is that just a ban? It's simple to talk about it as a ban.
There we go. Banning versus boxing. So let's talk about boxing because there's definitely a lot of boxing going on in this book. Yeah.
Right. Yeah. And it's a central theme. Yeah.
At one point, they have a computing cluster, a quantum computing cluster that's literally one kilometer underground that's physically isolated from the net. The wires are not even close to each other. So they're very, very careful to keep this artificial intelligence that's running on this cluster from interacting with the rest of the world. Yeah.
They're worried about it. They're scared of it. And it actually seems kind of plausible to me that that whole story actually felt plausible in a way that many of the boxing scenarios I've imagined do not seem plausible. But the idea that you have this really expensive, technologically sophisticated, fragile, just at the very edge of what is possible for humans to put together for a large group of humans, like a government, the resources of a government to put together is the thing that gives rise to the first post-human.
So that's another terminology thing, right? The transhuman versus the post-human. Yeah. So transhuman is anybody who is augmented in some way.
Is that right? Yeah. Which we're pretty close to transhumans now with our smartphones even. Well, I think, yeah.
And our pacemakers and stuff. But not really. We're not quite there. I don't know.
You might say that our new hearing aids. That our new hearing aids that use electronics, those might be considered post-human. It's like, well, what's artificial intelligence? It's anything that the computers haven't solved yet.
Anything we haven't solved with computers yet is artificial intelligence. Maybe post-human is the same. We keep pushing it out. I mean, transhuman.
You might say eyeglasses are an augmentation. Yeah. Yeah. So we've had transhuman.
We've been transhuman for a long time. And we'll just get to be more and more so until finally, there comes a point where there's something that's so far beyond that it's a post-human. And I think part of what makes maybe the post-human distinction is the idea that you now have finally the runaway improved self-improvement process. Yeah.
And in the books, they talk about this. Once post-humans happen, they will be a different species. They make the analogy of the Neanderthals with the early Homo sapiens sapiens. And it's fascinating to me how some people tell that analogy to say we should be creating post-humans.
We should allow post-humans to emerge because if Neanderthals simply suppressed early humans, we wouldn't be here. And other people take that exact same argument. Exactly. That's the point.
That's exactly the point. We wouldn't be here. So we need to suppress. If we were the Neanderthals in this situation, we absolutely need to suppress these emerging humans.
Otherwise, we will go extinct. That is a fascinating philosophical debate, I think. Yeah. What side do you come down on just sort of intuitively?
Post-human. Allow us. Me too, for sure. That's evolution.
It's this question of those are children. A few episodes ago, are the AIs are children? Or are children are children? Well, both, really.
The AIs are our descendants in a way. That's the next stage of evolution. Yeah. And I think the thing I take a little hope from that I've read in some of this fiction and stuff is the idea that Neanderthals and humans existed for a pretty long period of time together and interbred.
And then it was not an explosive disappearance of the Neanderthals from the perspective of an individual. Yeah. From the perspective of deep time, it was a cliff, an instantaneous cliff. But from a perspective of an individual, which is something that I want to think about because it's the individuals in my life that I care about, that I worry about.
From the perspective of the individuals, it may, if that analogy actually holds, which is not clear, will. But if it does hold, I can deal with that and kind of a slow wind down of the human species. Well, we should talk about game theory because I thought that was a fascinating. Oh, that was so good.
Yeah. So the prisoners are the one that I'm sure everybody, you're familiar with the prisoners dilemma. And the prisoners dilemma to two people are isolated from each other. They have to decide are they going to hold tight to their story?
I'm not talking. And if they do, they both end up getting punished or are they going to defect? And if one does it, that one goes free and the other one goes to jail for a long time. If they both effect, it's worse for everybody.
Yeah. So then the concept of iterated prisoners dilemma, which is the real world, which is that we all get to choose all the time. Are we going to be friendly or are we going to be evil? Are we going to go against the interests of the other?
And we always get to see what the other person did last time. And so the successful strategy for everybody is to for that, meaning you collaborate first, you're friendly first to see what the other person is going to do. And if the other person's friendly, well, and you keep doing what they did last time, you keep being friendly and you trust people until they give you a reason not to. Once they defect, then you punish them in the future.
Punish them mercilessly and you defect in the future. And so the reason the prisoners dilemma matters here is because you need to collaborate with the post humans. If you're a human, you need to collaborate with the post humans because that will allow the post humans then to collaborate with you. And that's our best strategy for surviving this transition as humans is to collaborate with the post humans.
Because if we defect, if we try to keep them in the box and we try to punish them or hurt them, then they're going to see that we defect it. They're going to defect against us and we're going to be in trouble. Yeah. And another element of the iterated prisoner dilemma scenario is that it isn't the case that you personally have to see each of the instances.
It's that your team has to see the instances. Somebody has to see it. Somebody who's going to be playing the game with them in the future. So even if we turn off a post human, keeping the information away from future hues, post humans that we did that is going to be difficult.
Right. They're going to see that. So in our best interest, that, yeah, I mean, one of the things that I think Ramesh avoids in this is the really, really difficult path where there were a lot of failures, a lot of proto post humans that were attempted and then turned off because they bailed on some criteria. Yeah.
Right. We skipped over that part. We were beyond that point in history. I'm ready to turn the series started.
We were beyond that part in history. And it seemed like maybe partly due to the story bias of trying to have a workable scenario. There wasn't a lot of that in this world. Right.
You know, there were there were some upload. It's the upload path. The whole thing is there's no, there's no truly foreign evolutionary path that leads to a post human in this world. It's an uploaded mind that grows.
Right. So some of those uploaded minds went crazy and had to be shut off and did some bad things and stuff. There was just a handful of those, just a couple of those. Whereas one of the potential ways that a truly post human intelligence we come about is through evolutionary algorithms.
And you have billions and maybe trillions of instances that you are holding up against a fitness function and pruning and breeding. And so there could be billions or trillions of these proto post humans that were cut off from ever being or were tested. They were alive and then they were shut off. Well, it makes me think in the process of creating the evolutionary path, the evolutionary, you know, the fitness function and then the ones that fail the fitness function have to be turned off, we might need to create it in such a way that nobody is actually doing the turning off.
The turning off happens all by itself when the fitness function, you know, you fail at the fitness function. I don't know if that would actually work in terms of the iterated prisoners dilemma of the future post humans. But you follow what happens is we have to be careful to save all of them. Well, I was thinking the other way, like in regular evolution, what happens is those individuals die, individuals without the correct adaptations, they simply die as a result of environmental conditions.
Nobody chose it. Nobody chose for the people, you know, with the very large appendixes to die or not have the evolutionary advantage and to not have children. Is there a way for us to set up the scenario so that we don't choose who lives or dies, that we don't evaluate the fitness function, that the fitness function simply evaluates and causes naturally those individuals not to propagate. That, that, I want to, I want to poke holes in that.
Imagine create a movie, this is another, another movie where some kid wakes up in, in this like horrible, like maze, all kinds of terrible things going on and some other kids and some of them live and some of them don't. And you find out that the maze is created by somebody. It's created by somebody in order to, it doesn't work. It doesn't work.
It doesn't work. No. No, it doesn't. Because I mean, what we're talking about, like, what we're talking about at the start is not something that approaches a human consciousness.
But we're talking about at the end is something that actually trans, that may transcend a human consciousness. Yeah. So I, I think that this is again pushing more towards the upload path and towards the augmentation and upload path of where the template for the post human consciousness comes from a human. Yeah.
Well, in a story, I mean, one of the problems with the insanity is when a mind is cut off from external stimulus, I don't know if this is actually true psychologically, it seems like it might be, but that, you know, that might just be my own story bias. That sounds good. When a mind is cut off from external stimulus, that's what breeds insanity because there's no error correction. There's no, you know, there's no new data, no new inputs.
And that's what happens when the AI is in the box. It goes insane. Well, somebody's got to decide what to do about that. And how do you learn that?
How do you learn that? If you don't know that cutting a mind off from external stimulus, that might be one of the experiments that you run. And if you run that, and how do you, how do you not be a defector in the iterated prisoners dilemma and end up turning that turning that AI off, turning that post human off? It's not even an AI at that point, right?
It's an uploaded human. It's an uploaded human with the potential for runaway self improvement. Yeah, it's problematic. Yeah.
Let's come back one more time to the boxing in the story. Okay. So, so in the story scenario has this exotic technology that's the only thing that's really capable besides the human mind at this time. It's only capable of running a consciousness, an intelligence that's at a human or above level.
Yes. That does seem like a possible scenario early on, like the earliest, the earliest intelligences that we would be able to create or that would be able to host a human upload will be supercomputers hopefully at the start or you know, hopefully we're that far along and we don't end up with a huge hardware overhang where the only thing that's missing is a breakthrough and anybody's smartphone could run a post human intelligence on it. So, then, then it's a free for all. So, let's talk about that for a minute.
So, I am not up on my supercomputers, you know, technology these days. I more think about computers as being the cloud and distributed and the idea that we get a lot of computing power just by throwing a lot of processors at it or a cluster. Whereas in the early days of computers before we all had personal computers, certainly long before cell phones, the idea of a room or a building full of computer. That was a supercomputer and the university might have one and there wasn't this idea of clusters yet.
What is the current state of supercomputers? What are, you know, do we have buildings full or are they big still or are they, what are they? Are they distributed? Are they in the cloud?
What is a supercomputer today? You know? Yeah, well, I mean, so there's the cluster like you're talking about which has certain limitations compared to a single, a single instance like a unit processor that runs things serially. You know, not all algorithms are very amenable to being parallelized, especially not with a high latency between your nodes and stuff.
So, the internet as a whole could be considered a single supercomputer if you take over all the nodes and have them all working on the same computation. That, I think we understand pretty well what the growth of capability for that paradigm is for the kind of the normal integrated circuit paradigm that we're in right now. That paradigm seems to be winding down. We're getting some diminishing returns, you know, Moore's law within the regime of that paradigm is slowing down.
And this is where your proximity thesis comes into play where the speed of light limits how capable the global internet could be as a single supercomputer, for example. Yeah, that's one of the things that limits large scale parallelism is that you end up with this, you know, these hotspots and then your bandwidth limited between them. You've got places where you do a lot of computation very quickly. This is true even on in a single computer that has multiple cores and different speeds of memory and cache and all this different stuff, right?
Yeah. So, that paradigm though is sort of running to its end. This is Kurzweil, he's one of the most articulate explainers of this. And he goes back, I think, all the way back to the 1890 census and covers five or six different computing regimes that were used to create this exponential processing power graph.
This is when you stack the S curves. This is when you stack the sigmoids, yes. You end up getting the overall exponential. Right.
And the most recent one is the integrated circuit regime. So, this transition between one sigmoid and the next one is what we're talking about. Yes. Yeah.
Of this in the book, the quantum computing cluster, you know, this physically isolated, it can only be created by a state actor, right, by a government we think, or in our case, you know, one of the large corporations shared more capability, but it's a single entity that's not shared. It's not everybody has it. It's that you could literally think about a single one of these things being built. Just like in the 50s or 60s, you could think about a single super computer being built.
That's kind of what I was getting at with what is a super computer today. Yeah. And quantum feels like a really strong candidate for something that could be powerful enough to get rise to post human intelligence. And it's also very esoteric.
It's very specialized. Like making a single qubit is very, very hard to do, very expensive to do. And so the idea that we could have this scenario is a live possibility in my mind. Yeah.
So that helps us have a good story, right? Yeah. Because then the kilometer down super computer that is only access to the outside world is really through a person that is plugging it in or unplugging, you know, plugging the physical connection in or unplugging it seems like a possibility. Yeah.
And in the story, I mean, they go to great lengths to create all kinds of security procedures so that it won't be accidentally plugged back in or, you know, no electronic devices are allowed to go down into this bunker below the ground. And there's all kinds of security checks. What they don't go into is how did she get herself in that position to begin with? How come before she was physically isolated?
She was also she had access to a brain to a physical body that was walking around. And that was part of what kept her not insane. How come she didn't anticipate the death of that body and make contingency plans to not be exciting? That seemed like kind of slightly implausible.
I mean, I guess the fact that she came up with Nexus in first place, I believe that was she was the source for Nexus, right? I think so. The original source for Nexus. Yeah.
So that feels like a play for fast infrastructure. Sure. But actually, to create it, you have to have fast infrastructure. Right.
So if you have fast infrastructure, then it's creating nanoscale devices and stuff. There's a kilometer of rock is nothing. Right. So I think that was one of the story bias weaknesses in the series.
I think you've identified it. Yeah. Yeah. And if she has as much capability as it seems to that she had, how come she couldn't cause to be created another quantum computing cluster in another location or somehow, I don't know.
I mean, there's a whole bunch of ways that she could break out of that box before they put her in the box because she was out of the box first. She was out in the world at first. Yeah. How come she wasn't exponentially self improving before she got put in the box?
Yeah. I think again, that's just a story device. Right. And it makes for a good story because if you don't have that, then the first page is there are humans and there's emerging post humans and then the second page is the post humans kill all the humans.
Well, not necessarily. But the second page is there are emerging post humans and humans and the second page is there are post humans and everything is at their whim. The post humans win. The win at their whim.
Yeah. Right. Yeah. I was like, yeah.
Yeah. They're just the same as a human humans and ants. We don't talk about the interesting story that is the conflict between them. The ant colony in the tree next to my house is they are at my whim.
If I notice it, if I care about it, I can destroy it at any time. Right. Yeah. So I think that is probably true.
Right. That feels like reality. So how do we make that first one a good one? Yeah.
Well, so okay. So should we go back to Nexus and talk about the wizard hat a little more? Oh, let's do that because that was really exciting to I thought the emergent group mind. Yeah.
Well, in the story, they use the monks. They use the Tibetan monks as the group meditators. Right. But they have already without nexus created and over mind, you know, created a what is the term for that?
You know, create a hive mind in some ways. And maybe that's more philosophical. Maybe that's metaphorical, you know, that the monks have a group mind. I think they were using they were using nexus three.
They were using the older the older nexus. But I think I think you could make the argument that today people that meditate in a group, sure, I'm not a meditator myself. So this wasn't exactly connected to my life. But you could make the argument that meditating in a group creates something.
Now, whether that's actually true or not, I don't know. But I think you can make the argument. So yes, the monks were using older version of nexus that couldn't run software, but they could connect with each other in local proximity. And they created they created a hive mind.
They created more peace, more calmness, more all these things that they're trying to that they're trying to create with, you know, more detachment from, you know, the whims of our I just loved, I absolutely loved that storyline. And that one of the one of the monks reactions kind of a senior monk's reaction to the ability of anybody running nexus to join one of those hive minds and get that experience to get that breakthrough to enlightenment was, you know, was was was upset was like, Hey, you know, that's not fair. I work my whole life to try to get this. We've been working our whole lives to get this.
It's not fair that anybody can get it now just at a by running a program that channels that that thing that that's that's a shortcut that's a cheat that's not fair, but the other monks, almost all of them, those who I think are have a little bit more sophisticated experience of that same state are delighted by the idea that that same piece and compassion and connection will be available to so many more. That's actually one of the Buddhist meditation, right, is about for everybody's, it's not just for the meditators, it's for everybody. Right, I'm going to stay here working on this until every living creature has this piece and compassionate connection. And so the idea that now suddenly so many more can get it is completely completely aligned with that purpose.
No, it's also dangerous. If you create an overmind, you create a collective intelligence that breeds anger and resentment, you know, you get riots. Yeah, yeah, I wonder what the dynamics would be of connecting many minds together like that. I feel like, you know, once or once or twice in my life, I have connected with a different perspective from meditation that was transformed it for me.
And like connecting with that changed me forever. I kind of feel like it's incredibly powerful. And if everybody could have that accessible at any moment, they could just get that get to that spot. I feel like it would win.
I don't feel like it would be the hate and the anger. Like there's so many limitations, I think they have to be in play in order for those things, the hate and the anger and all of those things to flourish. Yeah, this may be a deeper conversation about how that conflict might be resolved. In the story, it's that people that have not had the experience of the collective intelligence in the meditative way, in the peaceful way, they haven't had that experience at all.
But now they're connected with their wizard hats and somebody, some evil actor, puts the anger into the space. And they don't know how to deal with it. They just feel the anger. They act then on the anger.
It's as if they didn't even know that it was given to them from an external source. They just act like that. And that's, you know, that's it feels incredibly angry. Yeah, they were angry.
It wasn't it wasn't even when the actor stimulus was turned off. Their anger remained. Right. So, you know, I don't know, this is probably farther away from our discussion than, you know, than is that useful because it's very, very speculative and depends on how you get to the wizard hat idea.
It does. I do think it points at one of the things that's been most surprising to me that from the Neuralink article and from the Nexus books is the idea that instead of having a web browser in your brain that you're just thinking different thoughts than you would have thought before. That feels qualitatively so much more powerful. For some reason, I always think of the web browser in the brain kind of thing.
Yeah, there's some thing that my consciousness is looking at in order to have quicker access to information. I don't think of my consciousness being expanded and thinking different thoughts than I thought before. Yeah. Well, the Neuralink article talks about, you know, the five architects in the room that have the wizard hat on and them being able to swap without writing drawings down on a piece of paper, swap ideas back and forth.
And that sounds a little bit like your browser in the brain where it's a document model rather than a thinking model. But it's not that far of a leap to go to the thinking different thoughts. But you're right, there's a powerful distinction there between those two ideas. So maybe there's maybe there's we can notice in that smooth transition field, we can notice a couple of different distinct landing places.
So one is the web browser in the brain. You toss me an idea that I can see as external to myself and look at kind of like a web browser window. That's very efficient to get that over to me. Two is you toss me a thought that I can then have.
I can actually experience the thought. I can think of a thought. Not look at the thought as something external, but actually think of the thought. But then the third is that when our minds are connected, we actually think thoughts that my individual consciousness can barely even perceive because it takes the five of us to think the thought.
Yeah, that's exciting. That one is, I love that one. I got to be honest. And that one, you could make the argument that that's where post-human comes from.
It's from all of us. That does seem like one of the possible paths, right? Is these augmented minds that form a group mind. Right.
I got to be honest. I'm really excited about that one. I suppose that one could be dangerous too. But I think that's my favorite path that we've encountered that we as in the human colossus have come up with so far.
Yeah. Yeah. And I think maybe we need to come back to this one on a future show and look at what are the dangers and what are the, how could this actually happen? What are the dangers?
What do we need to prevent? We've read Superintelligence and in that book, Boston talks about some of the issues that we already know about that are dangerous and how do we handle that? We don't know. We don't know.
We don't know how to handle them. But how do we define what the actual dangers are, the individual things we need to solve. And with this one, I feel like we haven't really talked about it enough to know at all what the potential dangers are. Shall we call it collective consciousness?
Collective consciousness. Yeah. So let's have a, let's let our subconscious noodle on collective consciousness and we'll come back and talk about that in a later show. Awesome.
Awesome. And in the meantime, if any of you listeners want to participate in the conversation, there's a couple different ways you can do that. One is you can send us a voice memo. You can email that to concerningai at gmail.com and periodically we play some of those voice memos on the show and we have conversation then about your ideas.
Another way you can do that is you can go to Facebook and search for concerning AI concerning AI group. Ask for a membership and we'll get you in there and there are lots of smart people. There's a lot of posting links. Every once in a while, a really great conversation breaks out.
A lot of good thinking happens in there and a lot of information sharing. So join us there and otherwise subscribe to the show and we'll see you next episode. Any last words Brandon? Keep your wavy up.
Keep your wavy up. Bye. Bye.